Time 2 get a life!

toots said:

get over it.

thepope2the9s said:

I am (That LONG post let out a good amount of steam hehe.)

It does not matter. It is called copywrite infringement. You can't use someone music without permission or paying for it.

-----

thebumpsquad said:

There is no message to send. It is called copyright infringement. It is the law and Universal and Prince are not going to let it slide.

If some of you take the time you will see that loads of clips have been pulled down for the same reason.
-----

viewaskew said:

can some1 use a song in a movie w/out getting permission first?
then waht is the difference? a video on youtube...a movie at the theatre.
a song used in the background is still being used. U need permission. dig?

Prince's representatives have forced a UK taxi driver to take some videos off of YouTube. The taxi driver had filmed a few short videos while he was driving his cab and uploaded them to YouTube. During at least one of the videos, there was some Prince music playing in the background on the cab's radio. And, that, apparently, is enough for Prince's representatives to claim copyright infringement and get the video taken offline.


Get a f*ck*ng grip, really. This is getting pathetic. Am going to post some vids with "accidental" background music, then tell his lawyers to f*ck aff. Infact, If i get my hands on it, play stuff from the o2 live gigs in the background, that'd be funny. Coz it wasn't for sale, so does that make it copyright infringement? A good lawyer would get u off with that i think...

Oh no, my friend just walked in and i'm listening to Prince! Isn't that now making my livingroom a "concert hall" for public performance of Prince music?
O.k, i feel really guilty, i'm going to e-mail Paisly Park and hold up my hands, hopefully the judge will be leniant and maybe only hand me five years in prison, i'm so scared, how will i cope. Anyway, i better put the stereo off, before any one else comes in, it'll be like a concert in here b4 u can say, filesharingprincemusicisreallygoodandthatsallhedeservestheuptightlittleprick.

laurarichardson said:

What I have noticed is there is still plenty of stuff going up featuring prince and/or his music

I also note that The Pirate Bay have plenty of bit torrents directing you to prince material

So much for them being forced to take material down

The farcical thing is, The Pirate Bay are not breaking any laws in Sweden, so the Swedish government is trying to change the law to MAKE them criminals

How bizarre.....

laurarichardson said:

Technically she DID pay for it in a sence! Just think about it for a sec,okay.

Here is why I say this:

She could of BOUGHT the copy many many years ago like us OLD fans did when it first came out/ or many WEEKS ago. Technically she OWNS that particular copy IF that is the case in the situation.

Now if it was a ILLEGAL copy then she has no rights in this particular situation from what I understand.

Either way she is paying for it by getting sued.

About the guy playing the radio IMHO well have to wait and see. IF he intentualy played the song WHILE taping the youtube video, it can be used for copywrite infringement but if it wasnt then Ill have to wait and see with this as well.


(I dont fully understand the lawsuit and the copywrite laws since many of those laws are changing all the time and from one dayto the next) so IMHO well have to wait and see.
[Edited 1/23/08 7:28am]

toots said:

-----
I think the issue is the same as movies and t.v programs or sampling. If I buy some music or a DVD and I then turn around and use it a movie, broadcast program or as sample in my music. I have to ask permission and may be forced to pay a fee or may need to both.

I know a few years ago the NFL stopped casinos in Vegas from having SuperBowl parties because they were going to show the game and make a profit off of the parties. Keep in my the game was live on T.V. and was not being rebroadcast.

Just because thousands would be viewing and the NFL would not rep any profit and had not been asked permission all of the parties were canceled.

My point is P and Universal may have legal ground. Obviously he can't sue everyone but both parties can keep threatening all day.

laurarichardson said:

I see your point and Im not trying to argue about it. The key words you used in your post was "may have",doesnt always mean they will in certain cases. BUT(I stress that word) we will have to wait and see what the judge says and/or how it all turns out.

Either way and IMHO. I think P is overreacting ALOT about this whole situation.
[Edited 1/24/08 19:37pm]

Eveybody is overeacting to the whole situation.
The whole silly pfu situation, with people going nuts because youtube removed someones home video.

I dont want to seem like i care too much one way or another, the courts will decide on this, (remember sampling? Napster? ..too young?)

I would far rather support artists rights,... like the writers on strike, for the WORK they do rather than some someone goofing around on youtube or myspace.

You like Prince and his music?, support the artist, support the work.
His music obviously means something to the people that use it without permission,.....dont ya think it would mean even more for the people that try and make a living on their work?

Not every artist is as fortunate as Prince by the way, most are strugling to make ends meet.

SUPPORT THE ARTISTS!!!!


and before someone else brings up their stupid tattoo.....NOBODY gives a shit about your stupid tattoo, and dont make it seem like you're Rosa Parks or something , lol
...and all the pain and suffering for having the pic you posted removed is for a good cause.

[Edited 1/24/08 21:30pm]

violetblues said:

HUH???

And you DONT call someone buying the cd's supporting them?? Okay Im confused now.

b]
[/quote]
HUH???

And you DONT call someone buying the cd's supporting them?? Okay Im confused now.[/quote]


Yes! thats supporting the the artist, nobody said it wasnt.
dont be confused.

what i was refering to was to support artist copryright issues, because most artists are not as fortunate as Prince.

Most people think that since HE is doing good, he should look the other way.

toots said:

does anyone know what the heck is going on with the suit now?

violetblues said:

HUH???

And you DONT call someone buying the cd's supporting them?? Okay Im confused now.[/quote]


Yes! thats supporting the the artist, nobody said it wasnt.
dont be confused.

what i was refering to was to support artist copryright issues, because most artists are not as fortunate as Prince.

Most people think that since HE is doing good, he should look the other way.[/quote]

Whilst I agree in principle over the enforcement against the illegal use of an artists material i.e. his music, what you, and others, are forgetting is that that part of the issue has never been in dispute

What does tick people off are these spurious cases where a woman has the radio on and you can barely hear what is actually being played while her baby dances

The law was intended to protect people from others making money off of their work without permission

Not persecute a housewife in her own home with a baby who likes music and dances to it

Now prince is all in favour of protecting his intellectual property rights and good luck to him

With regard to photographs in particular, taken by people who are nothing to do with prince or his organisation, in law the taker of the photograph owns the copyright, noone else

This is well established in copyright law and enforcable under the Berne Convention

And yet prince via representatives is trying to claim someone elses material as his own with demands to remove photographs etc to which he has no lawful claim

So on the one hand "he who must not be named for fear of being sued" is bitching about people stealing his material for their own ends, and on the other is effectively trying to steal other peoples intellectual property

You cant have it both ways

You deride the PFU situation as "silly"

All the PFU has done is stand up to corporate thuggery and preserve your right to call the "PFU situation" "silly"

Or have you also forgotten the purple ones reps tried to force the sites to remove criticism of princes actions over the copyright issue thus trying to stifle free speech?

[/quote]
You deride the PFU situation as "silly"

All the PFU has done is stand up to corporate thuggery and preserve your right to call the "PFU situation" "silly"

Or have you also forgotten the purple ones reps tried to force the sites to remove criticism of princes actions over the copyright issue thus trying to stifle free speech?[/quote]



lol, who's trying to stifle free speech? more accurately, you want to be able to post (publish)others people's work however insignificant without consequence.


and for the record, nobody has been sued.

and the pfu's are stupidly silly, I and fans should support the artists protect their rights.

Lastly, i agree that some of these cases are wayyyy off for youtube to even bother responding.
The courts have to address exactly what is permissiable under fair use,...because obviuosly prince's lawers and youtube's lawers and this site's lawers all seem uncertain as to what is.
[Edited 1/25/08 18:58pm]

Flowerz said:

Nope, but I would love to know and so would others.

Markland said:

Yes! thats supporting the the artist, nobody said it wasnt.
dont be confused.

what i was refering to was to support artist copryright issues, because most artists are not as fortunate as Prince.

Most people think that since HE is doing good, he should look the other way.[/quote]

Whilst I agree in principle over the enforcement against the illegal use of an artists material i.e. his music, what you, and others, are forgetting is that that part of the issue has never been in dispute

What does tick people off are these spurious cases where a woman has the radio on and you can barely hear what is actually being played while her baby dances

The law was intended to protect people from others making money off of their work without permission

Not persecute a housewife in her own home with a baby who likes music and dances to it

Now prince is all in favour of protecting his intellectual property rights and good luck to him

With regard to photographs in particular, taken by people who are nothing to do with prince or his organisation, in law the taker of the photograph owns the copyright, noone else

This is well established in copyright law and enforcable under the Berne Convention

And yet prince via representatives is trying to claim someone elses material as his own with demands to remove photographs etc to which he has no lawful claim

So on the one hand "he who must not be named for fear of being sued" is bitching about people stealing his material for their own ends, and on the other is effectively trying to steal other peoples intellectual property

You cant have it both ways

You deride the PFU situation as "silly"

All the PFU has done is stand up to corporate thuggery and preserve your right to call the "PFU situation" "silly"

Or have you also forgotten the purple ones reps tried to force the sites to remove criticism of princes actions over the copyright issue thus trying to stifle free speech?[/quote]

But the thing is SHE WAS NOT MAKING MONEY off Prince's work!She was making her baby dance for other to laugh and enjoy.Please dont try and tell me that a mother cant make her baby dance by using any song for that matter you and I both KNOW that is rediculous!

She didnt STEAL Prince's material either IF she already owned it.

IF Prince is that so self concious over the saying of his name I say he should disappear from the music industry completely since he wants to try and control everything.(I said that before in another thread or this thread).

He cant have his cake and eat it too only because he is a celebrity. Money only buys certain things until he is broke from buying or cant buy anymore/paying for the lawyers.

Maybe SOMEONE should bring this dispute up instead of hiding behind a smokescreen.

I agree with what your saying with your post. But to make one thing clear,what is with this PFU stuff? I never really understood it all. I understood the thuggery part but other then that I am lost If you or someone cares to PM me with the facts about it please do.

jseven said:

violetblues said:

You deride the PFU situation as "silly"

All the PFU has done is stand up to corporate thuggery and preserve your right to call the "PFU situation" "silly"

Or have you also forgotten the purple ones reps tried to force the sites to remove criticism of princes actions over the copyright issue thus trying to stifle free speech?[/quote]



lol, who's trying to stifle free speech? more accurately, you want to be able to post (publish)others people's work however insignificant without consequence.


and for the record, nobody has been sued.

and the pfu's are stupidly silly, I and fans should support the artists protect their rights.

Lastly, i agree that some of these cases are wayyyy off for youtube to even bother responding.
The courts have to address exactly what is permissiable under fair use,...because obviuosly prince's lawers and youtube's lawers and this site's lawers all seem uncertain as to what is.
[Edited 1/25/08 18:58pm]
[/quote]

Prince representatives demanded that information posted on the PFU site in relation to what was going on was removed

If that isn't stifling free speech I don't know what is

Half the problem with discussions on here is people think this is restricted solely to music, its not, its also about him trying to control what is said and about peoples photographs, their own intellectual property

I have not seen a single PFU post that says people should be able to post his music

If you had also read what I said, I don't have any problem whatsoever with him protecting his own material, I do have a problem with him trying to claim copyright on property that belongs to others

I don't to post his music here or anywhere else, I am quite content to listen to it in my own home

From the few emails I have seen from knob sheriff, they wouldn't last a nanosecond in a decent court room

The threats from his reps relied more on threats and legal thuggery than on legal substance, they also underestmiated the moral fibre of the owners of the websites who, thankfully, stood up for all of our rights

Basically the bully came unstuck

Luckily

Toots, I agree with you that woman wasn't making a dime

The whole thing was a public relations disaster for the purple one and made him look a real chump

I note the great successes in his campaign to get his material removed seem to consist, so far, of one housewife with his music playing on the radio in the background, and one can driver also with his music playing in the background

I checked The Pirate Bay, nothing has been removed from there, Youtube still has prince material on it, two other file sharing programmes I checked also have hundreds of listings for prince and google reveals no end of pirated prince material available

These are the people, if this isn't anything more than a sad publicity stunt, that prince should be going after, not his loyal fanbase and a housewife and cab driver

Markland said:

I also know a few places where they havent removed Prince material. I am so not about to say either way. Its a paysite to even get the songs/MP3's at.

I agree with what your saying.

Markland said:

These are the people, if this isn't anything more than a sad publicity stunt, that prince should be going after, not his loyal fanbase and a housewife and cab driver

these sites were told to remove items that might not be legit, so they took off anything that might not be permissable, just to be safe and play nice.

The cab driver and the lady have not been sued, the items were voluntarily removed by the sites. period.

this whole nutty situation is caused by everybody overreacting.
[Edited 1/26/08 11:14am]

Prince is toast.

violetblues said:

The woman with the dancing baby was threatened repeatedly with legal action and youtube had to take it down or face legal action

The woman feels so agrieved by her treatment and the threates that she is now suing Universal!

How the hell is being told to take something dcwn or face legal action removing it voluntarily???

The only reason these people haven't been sued is because Youtube caved in to legal threats!

The fansites were TOLD to remove images etc or face legal action

That included material to which prince doesn't even own the rights

And how do you explain knob sheriff demanding that the explanation for what is going on be removed from the PFU site?

Where is the copyright in that that belongs to prince?

The real reason this whole nutty situation has been brought about is because one artists has decided to go on some sort of weird crusade/publicity stunt, which it is I have no idea

You cannot seriously think that people getting ticked off by someone trampling over their intellectual property rights and the right to free speech is an over reaction surely?

Voluntarily removed my ass

Markland said:

lol,
last year everybody was smirking and smug about how he shouldnt even try to protect his material because within the net it was impossible.

lol, how the the tune has changed!

Just watch, keep an eye on the timeframe before Pirate Bay goes running and hides into another site altogether

And just who has been sued? anybody?....anybody?...name just one person!

Keep in mind, the lady with the baby, the cab driver are not the ones in the bullseye,.... Piratebay, and everyone else like them are, and believe me, its only a matter of time!
[Edited 1/26/08 17:01pm]

Markland said:

You cannot seriously think that people getting ticked off by someone trampling over their intellectual property rights and the right to free speech is an over reaction surely?

lol
you just anwered why Prince and Metalica did what they did, and they are the ones that have the best reason to be ticked off!


[Edited 1/26/08 17:16pm]

Markland said:

lol, who's trying to stifle free speech? more accurately, you want to be able to post (publish)others people's work however insignificant without consequence.


and for the record, nobody has been sued.

and the pfu's are stupidly silly, I and fans should support the artists protect their rights.

Lastly, i agree that some of these cases are wayyyy off for youtube to even bother responding.
The courts have to address exactly what is permissiable under fair use,...because obviuosly prince's lawers and youtube's lawers and this site's lawers all seem uncertain as to what is.
[Edited 1/25/08 18:58pm]
[/quote]

Prince representatives demanded that information posted on the PFU site in relation to what was going on was removed

If that isn't stifling free speech I don't know what is

Half the problem with discussions on here is people think this is restricted solely to music, its not, its also about him trying to control what is said and about peoples photographs, their own intellectual property

I have not seen a single PFU post that says people should be able to post his music

If you had also read what I said, I don't have any problem whatsoever with him protecting his own material, I do have a problem with him trying to claim copyright on property that belongs to others

I don't to post his music here or anywhere else, I am quite content to listen to it in my own home

From the few emails I have seen from knob sheriff, they wouldn't last a nanosecond in a decent court room

The threats from his reps relied more on threats and legal thuggery than on legal substance, they also underestmiated the moral fibre of the owners of the websites who, thankfully, stood up for all of our rights

Basically the bully came unstuck

Luckily[/quote]






People are reading your posts very selectively. They continue to ignore the fact that no one, NO ONE is disputing Prince's rights to protect his intellectual property.

I admire your tenacity Markland.